snazy commented on PR #490: URL: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/490#issuecomment-2535939652
> > Also, having a weigher meant to limit heap pressure but having it's calculation being largely off is IMO not good. > > I disagree that it's "largely off" to a degree that matters, which I articulated in a comment above. Let's keep discussing in more detail there if you'd like. For this thread, I would just ask: Is the current behavior better? 2x+ is largely off, no? String.length() does not return the number of bytes. > It seems to me that cache that is bounded to an imprecise number of bytes is vastly better than a totally unbounded cache. It's not unbounded at this point - 100,000 * 1kB is ~ 1MB - that's acceptable. But the intent of this PR is to add really large and uncompressed object trees. So for me it seems that the effort has the potential to make Polaris unstable and/or Caffeine's eviction algorithm way less efficient. > > there's been no Polaris "GA" release yet, so there's no pressure to push things in. > > I don't fully understand this point. Can you clarify? I am eager to see our first release, but I don't think its delay means we should put off impactful work. It's related to pushing for this change - we still have time to design things properly in Apache Polaris. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
